Type of Society- different prospective of sociologist
So far we have defined all-inclusive society. But there are also different groupings which may exist among the members of society. These different groupings have been studied by sociologists from different points of view.
GEMEINSCHAFT AND GESELLSCHAFT
These concepts were developed by Tonnies, usually translated as community and society respectively. Gemeinschaft or community is defined as "intimate, private and exclusive living together' in a localized group and have a feeling of 'belonging' to one another. It is a group of people who occupy a defined territory within which the group is assured of a self-sufficing life.
As communities get larger and more complex, they tend to lose person contacts marked by intimacy and mutual dependence and to become impersonal. The size of a community is an important determinant of its characteristics, though there are various other factors that introduce differences among communities. A community may be industrial or agriculture, rural or urban. This will affect the characteristics of the community.
Gesellschaft usually translated as 'associate' represents relationships that are specific, partial and utilitarian. An association may be distinguished from a community from the following points of view. Firstly, while an association is developed with a particular interest in mind, a community is the total organization of social life within an area. When, however, an association has a plurality of ends, it approaches the concept of community. Secondly in a community individual are involved as complete persons. In an association, on the other hand, the members are not 'wholly' involved as individuals. Thirdly, a community is united by an accord of feeling among individuals whereas an association is united by a rational agreement of interest. Fourthly, the association has no reference to the geographical location that distinguishes a community from other social groups.
MECHANICAL AND ORGANIC SOLIDARITY
Durkheim distinguished between two types of society on the bases of the division of labor, collective conscious and set of laws, in a given society.
(1) A society based on Mechanical Solidarity: Mechanical solidarity is the solidarity of resemblance. People are homogeneous, mentally and morally; they feel the same emotion, cherish the same values, and hold the same things sacred.
Durkheim suggested that mechanical solidarity prevailed to the extent that "ideas and tendencies common to all members of the society are greater in number and intensity that those which pertain personally to each member". He explained that this solidarity grows only in inverse ratio to personality. Solidarity, which comes from likeness is at its maximum when the collective conscience completely envelops our whole conscience. Such a society is also characterized by repressive law, which multiplies punishment to show the force of common sentiments.
Mechanical Solidarity
|
Organic Solidarity
|
1. Based on homogeneity & mental resemblance, communities are uniform & non-atomized with shared values
2. Develops out of likeness
3. Strong collective conscience
4. Simple social division of labor
5. Presence of Repressive laws.
6. Primitive societies
|
1. The increasing difference between individualistic and different values.
2. Develops out of differences.
3. Weak or peripheral collective conscience.
4. Complex and intercaste social division of labor.
5. Presence of restitutive law.
6. Modern society.
|
(ii) Society Based on Organic Solidarity: Organic solidarity develops out of differences rather than likeness between individuals in modern societies, individuals are no larger similar, but different; their mental and moral similarities have disappeared. A society having organic solidarity is characterized by specialization, division of labor and individualism. It is held together by the inter-dependence of parts, rather than by the homogeneity of elements. It is also characterized by the weakening of the collective conscience and restitutive law. Organic solidarity, as Durkheim envisioned it, develops out of differences rather than likeness and it is a product of the division of labor. With the emergence of the division of labour in society. Owing to a complex of facts such as increased population, urbanization, industrialization, and with its concomitant rise in dissimilarities of individuals in society, there was am an inevitable increase in interdependence among society's members.
MILITANT AND INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
Spencer made an effort to provide two types of societies. This classification system, based on the type of internal regulation within societies, is rooted in a theory of society which states that "types of social structure depend on the relation of a society to other societies in its significant environment."
I. Militant Society: Militant society is characterized by compulsory cooperation. It is also characterized by a centralized government, a rigid system of stratification economic autonomy and state domination of all social organizations. In the militant society, individuals exist for the benefits of the state.
II. Industrial Society: It is based on voluntary cooperation. free trade, loss of economic autonomy, independent voluntary organization, a relatively open system of stratification and a decentralized government characterize an industrial society. In industrial society, the state exists for the sake of individuals.
CONTRAST BETWEEN MILITANT & INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
| ||
Characteristic
|
Militant Society
|
Industrial Society
|
Dominant Function
Social Cordination
Relation Between State & Individual
Structure of Social Stratification
Types of Economic Activity
Structure of State
|
Corporate defensive and offensive activity for the preservation and aggrandization
Compulsory Cooperation regimentation of orders both positive and negative regulation of activity
Individuals exist for benefits of state restraints on liberty, property and mobility
Fixity of rank, inheritance of position
Economic autonomy and self-sufficiency
Centralized
|
Peaceful mutual rendering of individual services
Voluntary cooperation
The state exists for the benefit of individuals, few restrain on freedom
Plasticity and openness of ranks, movement between a position
Loss of economic autonomy, interdependence via peaceful trade.
Decentralized
|
Redfield talked about two types of societies.
(I) Folk Society: It is a concept used by R. Redfield to designate one pole of a continuum between folk and urban societies. Folk societies are relatively more isolated, homogeneous and traditionally organized, and less secular and individualistic.
(II) Urban Society: A society with a high population density a predominance of non-agricultural occupations, a high degree of specialization resulting in a complex division of labor, and a formalized system of local government. Urban societies also tend to be characterized by a heterogeneous population, impersonal secondary relations, and dependence on formal social controls.
EARLY TYPES AND MODERN SOCIETIES
Anthony Giddens: His model of society is as follows:
EARLY TYPES OF HUMAN SOCIETY
| ||
Type
|
Period of Existence
|
Characteristics
|
Hunting and Gathering Societies
Pastoral Societies
Agrarian Societies
Traditional states or civilizations
|
50,000 BC to the present (now on the verge of complete disappearance).
12,000 ac to the present. Today mostly part of larger states; their traditional ways of life are being undermined.
12,000 be to the present. Most are now part of larger political entities and are losing their distinct identity.
6000 BC to the nineteenth century. All traditional states have disappeared.
|
Consist of small numbers of people gaining their livelihood from hunting fishing, and the gathering of edible plants. Few inequalities. Differences of rank limited by age and sex.
Dependent on the tending of domesticated animals for their material subsistence. Size ranges from a few hundred people to many thousands. Marked by distinct inequalities. Ruled by chiefs or warrior kings.
Based on small rural communities, without towns or cities. Livelihood gained through agriculture, often supplemented by hunting and gathering. Greater inequalities than among hunters and gathers. Ruled by chiefs.
Based largely on agriculture. Some cities exist where trade and manufacture are concentrated. Very large in size, some numbering millions of people (though small compared with larger industrialized societies) Distinct apparatus of government headed by a king or emperor. Major inequalities exist among different classes.
|
SOCIETIES OF MODERN WORLD
| ||
Type
|
Period of Existence
|
Characteristics
|
First World Societies
Second World Societies
Third World Societies
Newly Industrializing Countries
|
Eighteenth-century of the present.
Early twentieth century (following the Russian Revolution of 1917) to the early 1990s.
Eighteenth-century (mostly as colonized areas) to the present
1970s to the present
|
Based on industrial production and generally free enterprise. Majority of people live in towns and cities, a few work in rural agricultural pursuits. Major class inequalities, though less pronounced than in traditional states.
Based on industry, but the economic system is centrally planned. Small proportion of the population work in agriculture; most live in towns and cities. Major class inequalities persist. Distinct political communities or nation-states. Until 1989, composed of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but social and political changes began to transform them into free enterprise economic system, making them First World societies.
Majority of the population work in agriculture, using traditional methods of production. Some agriculture products sold on world markets. Some have a free enterprise system, others are centrally planned Distinct political communities or nation-states, including China, India and most African and South American nations.
Former, Third World societies now based on industrial production and generally free enterprise The majority of people live in towns and cities, a few works in agriculture pursuits. Major class inequalities, more pronounced than First World societies. Average per capita income considerably less than First World societies. Include Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Brazil, and Mexico
|
HUMAN AND ANIMAL SOCIETIES
Society is not the exclusive monopoly of human beings. Animals also live in society. Even they prefer to live in herds and fly as well as sit together. In this way there are both animal and human societies, though in several respects these very much differ from each other. The points of similarity, between the two are only few, whereas dissimilarities are many. Some of the similarities are as follow:
1. The tendency for Self-preservation: Both the individuals as well as animals require society for self-preservation. Both feel that without society, the very existence of their life will become impossible. Therefore both depend on society with a selfish motive of self-preservation.
2. The desire for Perpetuation: Both the animals as well as human beings have the wish to perpetuate and have a desire to have children to succeed them. This desire or sex instinct is a common feature in both societies.
3. The tendency to Live in Groups: Both animals, as well as human beings, wish to live in groups. Living in isolation is considered a punishment. We find herds of animals, ants, and wild elephants, etc. moving in groups from one place to another and so is the case with human beings who cannot think of living in isolation. The very fact that solitary confinement is a punishment for human beings speaks for itself about the desire and tendency of people to live in groups.
4. Society is Needed for Meeting Physical Needs: Protection from natural calamities is quite common both for the animals as well as the human beings. Both feel that without society this protection is just impossible and impracticable. Therefor both the animals as well as human beings require society to meet their physical needs.
5. Society is Needed for Development: Without society it is difficult to think of mental, moral and physical development. This development is essential for both human beings and animals and for their development, society is needed by both.
But in spite of these few points of similarities there are several points of differences between the two societies. Even though these differences are qualitative rather than quantitative, differences are qualitative rather than in kind, they are sufficiently great to set human society definitely apart from that of animals.
1. Whereas for human society culture is most important, for animals society, it has no relevance and significance.
2. Members of human societies have mental capacity, whereas those of animal society have no such capacity.
3. Whereas in human society people adopt artificial means to protect themselves, animal society is far away from the use of artificial means for its protection.
4. The human mind is much more developed than the animal mind and it applies to both human as well as animal society.
5. Whereas members of human society are aware of societies existing among the members themselves, no such awareness exists among the members of animal society.
6. Man can change his means and methods of livelihood and adjust himself to his social needs, whereas that does not apply in case of animal society.
7. In animal society, there is no symbolic communication with the result that animals cannot transmit their culture heritage to the succeeding generations.
INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY
The interaction of individual and society is an important segment in the study of sociology as it is this social activity which completes socialization or internalization of ones own culture heritage. Such an end is the very basis of society because solidarity is what holds society together.
In approaching the relationship between individual and society, scholars have viewed it from two perspectives.
1. Mechanistic Theory: One is known as Mechanistic theory which treats society as the result of a deliberate act of creation by individuals, that is society emerged at a finite point of time. Implied in this approach is the view that individual has claims against society, for it is only a means to serve the ends of individuals. Some of the exponents of this school of thought carry the argument to extremes. Since society is the resultant of a deliberate decision of individuals, there is room for divergence between individual and society. This logical scope for antagonism between individuals and society entitles individuals to rebel or revolt against society.
2. Organic Theory: The second approach is the organic theory. This approach to the relationships between individual and society starts with the view that society is as old as mankind. The anthropological evidence clearly indicates that man as an individual has always lived in society and both society and individuals have grown in a very complex manner. As time passed by carrying this argument further, the exponents of this school. It is inconceivable to think of individual existing without the help of society. When this contention is carried to its logical extremity, society becomes an ethical entity having its own stature and even a personality. Thus, those who are at the extreme end of the organic school of theory, elevate society as a consscious ethical substance capable of "self--actualisation and self-knowing".
A variation of this theory is the identification of society with organism. This approach has been criticised for doing injustice to the individuality of the social being. No society can attain meaning unless the individuals themselves are real society, unlike the individual has no central organ or perception of thought. Further, individual does not belong to society as the cell belongs to the organism. The relationship between individual and society is thus not one-sided: Both are essential for the comprehension of either.
The extremist view-point of both the schools of thought does not reveal the time relationship between the individual and society. It is true that society is a natural institution in the sense that it has been as old as the history of man, though the individual is a later day development. The word individual means thinking man. Social anthropology shows that the faculty of thinking and communication through articulate language came into existence much later. Society, therefore, grew around the nucleus of man and woman relationships, that is, biological, psychological and perhaps economic considerations are at the base of the very early societies of man.
As things are today it is a well-known fact that an individual is socialized by various agencies and institutions of society. The extent to which an individual is socialized depends on whether a society is a totalitarian or a free one. In a free and democratic society, the individual does enjoy some amount of freedom to differ with society.
On the other hand, in a totalitarian society, individuals and society are controlled and directed by centralized agencies. In such a society there is very little room for conflict or divergences between individuals and society. Whatever may be the form of society, it is impossible to think that an individual loses his identity completely. There will be always some in totalitarian societies that question social order. Even in the democratic set-up is like an enormous electromagnet field and the high tension areas are those consisting of eccentrics, lunatics and geniuses.
Comments